Because the murder-free-zone law that protects the rest of us is just not working well enough. The high officials need a double layer of legal protection.

So when you gun-carriers are out and about, you'll to have make sure you know who all the relevant officials are and where they are at all times and stay 1,000 feet away from there. And if, while you're standing back out of the zone, somebody else, some non-respecter of gun-free zones, pulls out a gun and starts shooting, make sure you don't cross the 1,000 foot line when you try to take out the shooter.

I just blogged about this. Same sentiments. It strikes me the same way as when a commentator would point out that Virginia Tech's campus was a gun-free zone--then they'd get a sheepish look on their face and change the subject, noting the obvious disconnect between the rationale of the rule and its pure ineffectiveness.

Still, if someone's really determined to shoot a public figure, 1,000 feet isn't that large of a buffer for a skilled marksman. How far was the book depository, after all? And the grassy knoll, now that I think about it.

Agree with Kirby. The old Mark Twain line, "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt", has never been so applicable to so many people in so little time.

This one time I was thinking about murdering a whole bunch of people, but then I realized it would be against the law to bring my gun with me when I did it. So I went to Starbucks and bought a latte instead. Now I'm a productive citizen, all thanks to gun control laws.

Under federal law, it’s illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.

And there I thought the Gun Free School Zone Act had been struck down by SCOTUS in Lopez.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was enacted as section 1702of the Crime Control Act of 1990 and signed by President George H.W. Bush on November 29, 1990.

It was subsequently declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by the United States Supreme Court, and was therefore voided. This case, United States v. Lopez (1995), was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.

Following the Lopez decision, Congress made minor changes requiring that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce," and re-enacted the law with President William J. Clinton's signature as the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 Title 18 U.S.C Section 922(q). As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. Although The 1995 GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.

Oh for heaven's sake. Just give all the kids guns to keep in their desks and issue one to each for use on the playground then arm every politican, judge and covered official with a shotgun and forget about the whole thing.

Laws like this would effectively make it illegal to carry any where in the downtown of many large cities because there are federal courts, congressional/senatorial offices, federal reserve offices, post offices, etc.

Plus, many more ordinary people are murdered than federal officials. How many people died in the Tucson shooting who weren't federal officials? How many people across the country who weren't federal officials have been murdered since Giffords was shot?

Grow a pair. Giffords is more of a man than King. We need more leaders who are willing to face danger so they understand what our citizens and soldiers face every day rather than the plush, cuddled lives they lead.

Right. Because we never have shooting sprees at schools. And surely Loughner, had he known about such a law, would not have dared bring a gun inside Giffords radius of special legal protection. He was ready to murder, not ready to defy the bureaucracy!

The Monarchists are genuinely scared of the voters. Is that because they know that they are at war with the voters. America is still appears to be an ungovernable accumulation of rebels when seen from a King's perspective. So let's send the newest Kings back to England and Kenya where they are really needed. What was the bill's author named?

1000 feet is much shorter than 400 meters. With my M14 I only missed one target at 400 meters back when I was going through Basic Combat Training, though that was a long time ago (more than 40 years, in fact).

But let's run this law past the Giffords scenario. Jared Loughner would be guilty, but he's already been charged with multiple counts of homicide, and I can't imagine that the penalties for violating the "gun-free lawmaker zone" would be more severe than the penalties for multiple homicides.

On the other hand, the guy who came rushing up with his own handgun to try to engage the shooter and save lives, now that guy would be guilty of violating the "gun-free lawmaker zone," and he could be looking at some prison time.

That's Democrats for you -- letting no good deed go unpunished since the days of Thomas Jefferson.

How about a law that makes it illegal to break existing laws? That'd cover it, right? No, maybe not enough,... another law making it illegal to break the law against breaking existing laws. There, now we're 3 times as safe!

I thought of this at the election last fall, when I drove into the parking lot at the school where my polling place was. I bet at least every third or fourth vehicle in the lot had a loaded firearm in it, and no, they had not let the schools out for the midterm election. Yet we kick kids out of school for bringing their nail-cutters to school!

Ok, so if you own a house next door to a school, or a Congressman's house if this abortion of a bill passes, then you are barred by Federal law from keeping an otherwise legal firearm in your own home?

This is just one of those nasty little laws that is almost never enforced, except against the "wrong" sort of people, amirite?

You don't even need a sniper's skills for a shot at that distance. When I was in the infantry, we routinely shot targets at 300 meters using nothing more than a standard M-16 with iron sights. Millions of guys have had that kind of training. A real sniper can kill someone from 1000+ meters with a medium rifle and over a mile with the heavy iron. Last year, a British sniper in Afghanistan fired 3 rounds from over 1.5 miles, killing two men and destroying a piece of equipment.

"Psychotic people clearly represent a danger to our society, and so it is important that we make a stand today to let them know that they will no longer be allowed to be psychotic and must immediately desist in their psychoses," said one Representative.

"Today I stand with my Congressional colleagues as we prepare to introduce the No Aiming Act. It is nearly impossible to murder someone with a firearm without the use of aim, and so we propose to outlaw aiming entirely. By this act, we have balanced the interest of stopping murderers with the interests of those who shoot guns for recreation. This act does not ban guns, nor does it outlaw the shooting of firearms for entertainment. It simply forbids the aiming of firearms. We understand that this may end the niche sport of target shooting, but we feel that that is a small price to pay for saving lives."

How about a law that makes it a felony for an elected official to propose, sponsor, or vote in favor of any flagrantly unconstitutional law, with mandatory prison time and unlimited personal liability if convicted. And a clause that the call on whether a law is flagrantly unconstitutional or not will be decided exclusively by the jury, not anyone in the judicial chain.

Coketown said...Still, if someone's really determined to shoot a public figure, 1,000 feet isn't that large of a buffer for a skilled marksman. How far was the book depository, after all? And the grassy knoll, now that I think about it.

I've been to the Texas Book Depository and all of Oswald's shots were at relatively close range--under 100 yards. His first shot was at 175 feet and his third at 265 feet.

I agree that the proposed law is stupid and pointless, as are "gun-free" zones around schools.

If the doors of mental institutions had not been thrown open in the late 70's going forward to save the states money, maybe guys like this would be watching TV in the sunroom instead of walking amongst us killing people.

Russ said...How about a law that makes it illegal to break existing laws? That'd cover it, right? No, maybe not enough,... another law making it illegal to break the law against breaking existing laws. There, now we're 3 times as safe!

"Today we introduce a new layer of protection upon the American people; today we put forward the No Eating if You're Planning to Murder Anyone Act. The protection provided by this bill, if passed, will be twofold. First, it will deincentivize murder by forcing would-be murderers to endure extreme hunger to carry out their bad acts. All people planning to murder anyone will consider themselves put on notice to starve. This great suffering will, assuredly, cause them to rethink their intentions. Two, would-be criminals will weaken themselves by their lack of food and be inhibited in their abilities to carry out their nefarious deeds. By supporting this bill, we are telling the would-be murderers of this country that we don't like what they are planning to do. Not at all. And so, we ask our fellow Representatives to come together with us on this legislation. That is, unless they want more Americans to die."

It is fair to say that over the years Ben & Jerry's with their artery clogging wares have killed more people than Smith & Wesson. I think even Michelle Obama would agree with that. And yet these merchants of death proliferate like dandelions. Is it because of their hippie coloration? I would propose a law banning the opening of a Ben & Jerry's within one thousand feet of any fat assed politician. It is too late for Ted Kennedy, but there is still time for Barney Frank and, for that matter, Peter King.

You don't even need a sniper's skills for a shot at that distance. When I was in the infantry, we routinely shot targets at 300 meters using nothing more than a standard M-16 with iron sights. ----------------------Agree. Nothing new. Everything is pretty effective and accurate out to 359 yards since the 1898 Mauser came out, along with the speer tip. And most infantrymen can be trained to be accurate, 15-20% deadly accurate, without specialized sniper skills. Gun-ignorant people think, just like the movie heroes in their gunfights, it is incredibly difficult for the bad guys to hit anything, even from 50 yards. Leading to the "Master Sniper" theories from the ignorant and dumb FBI profilers who spent more time in pop psychology classes than on a gun range.

what's the point of gun magazines that contain thirty bullets and where's the harm in banning them?

Recent home invasion in Arizona: perps came in daylight, about 6 of them, all armed with illegally obtained AK47s. Homeowner barriaded himself inside and kept them at bay with his own arsenal, which included high-capacity mags.

Lesson: its not our place to determine what someone else's self-defense needs are. Esp in places like Arizona, where Obama has admitted to looking the other way on border crime to extort support for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Well, it would be interesting. Somehow we would be expected to know where these federal employees are at all times, so that we don't go near them. Or, maybe move away when they come.

But, that would seem to me to mean that if a federal lawmaker, etc. approached someone who was carrying, then the lawmaker would have some vicarious liability - conspirator, accomplice before the fact, etc. Of course, the law would be subject to discretionary application by the U.S. Attorney's office, and so they would never prosecute those actually causing the crimes by walking towards someone who had a gun. But still...

And, then you would have the problem of lawmakers, etc. who actually like guns. If they went to a shooting range, everyone else would have to leave. And, no one would show up for their political events. (reminds me of when VP Cheney went to speak in Utah - the SS wouldn't let any guns near him, but the Republican party wouldn't disarm its members. The solution was a bunch of gun lockers brought in for just that one appearance).

"How far was the book depository, after all? And the grassy knoll, now that I think about it."Not far at all. A stone's throw.

"You see where this is headed...they willkeep expanding that gun free zone until it takes up the entire country."You don't need to when you make the barrier mobile. Anyone within 1000 feet of a *road* is now potentially going to violate this by possessing a stationary handgun within the bounds of their own home if the wrong car drives by on a parallel street three blocks down from their house.

I seem someone else mentioned how this violates Lopez. For the reason above, I'd say it also clearly runs against Heller.

OK - how about we lock up all the politicos in a single gun-free city? We'll have to pick one that already has extremely stringent anti-gun laws, so we can be sure that there are no evil guns lying around. Then we build a big security fence around the city (to keep out all the dangerous armed citizens, bitter clingers and tea party types), so it is just the pols, their staffs and a select group of government-worshiping, unarmed citizens.

We will call this utopia "Washington, DC", a/k/a paradise on the Potomac.

I have a better idea. Why don't we make a law that says that constituents have to stay five miles away from elected officials. Then we don't have these cheesy meet and greets where the lawmakers (love the phrase) have to mingle and pretend to listen. Then we could dispense with the charade and the lawmakers would have to guess what the people wanted and if they guess wrong they are out. Oh, and that includes lobbyists. And staff. Because with no interaction with the people you don't need all that interference.

I'm buying stock in Stanley Works, they make tape measures and laser measuring devices. I just hope they don't have crosshairs. Imagine a congressman out campaigning and seeing a dozen little red spots lighting him up.

"I wasn't going to shoot! I just wanted to know if I was far enough away!"

Beth: Cheney hunting "fiasco" is a case in point. What part of the hunting accident was a fiasco? How does that word get used in connection with a hunting accident? Would a liberal's hunting accident be a fiasco or a hunting accident?

Or are you referring to the treatment of the accident by the media? Because the accident was not immediately reported to Katie Couric?

Obviously, members of Congress have much to fear when mingling with the public in general, so rather than creating moving gun zone buffers around each and every Congressperson, I modestly propose we repurpose one of our federal prisons in the Northern Virginia/DC area as a Maximum Security Congressional Compound.

They can build an underground subway from the MSCC to the Capitol Building (rather than a traditional subway with big cars, have little individual coffin sized tubes for our reps to commute in, that would cut the costs of such a system by a huge margin, and really, who needs to stand or sit up while commuting, anyway?) and keep them all locked tight behind barbed wire and guarded machine gun nests when out of session.

Build a state of the art media center within the MSCC so they can still do all their appearances on the various Sunday Morning shows, and the like, that way the public won't miss out on the wit and wisdom of our political elite.

There would be an added bonus ending all junkets (if they want safety so much, they probably shouldn't be jetting off to a bunch of foreign hotspots on the public dime), and mitigate some of the advantages of incumbency during re-election campaigns (that's right, they wouldn't be paroled, even to campaign).

I think this could work, Congress might be reluctant to pass this law upon themselves, but I bet 38 State Legislatures across this great land might see fit to amending our Constitution to that effect.

HD: Not sure why you would call Beth an idiot, but that is for you to say. That was a great cartoon of Cheney blowing the constitution to bits but I thought you guys thought the constitution a bit of a laugh, or at least you did a week or so ago. And which parts of the blown up constitution has our current president restored. Thanks for serving first.

Not to be too Jonathan Swift here but the obvious solution that the gun lovers would embrace would be to issue each kid a handgun when he turns, say 3 years old or so, or strong enough to pull the trigger..by the time they are adults so many would be gone that only the best shots and the most cunning gun toters would be left leaving us a population who are very good at the old lock and load.

Everyone then would be well trained and versed on shooting and although society would look like the posturing before the OK Corral shootout, eyes twitching, hands at the ready to draw and shoot, the gun lobby would have no opposition and all would be right with the world.

I think it is a great idea, as long as it applies to all "someone"s, including LEOs, bodyguards, and the officials themselves. It will allow them to feel like the rest of us when we enter a gun-free zone.

Larry J makes a good point re the accuracy of ordinary rifles; I qualified expert in 1961 with an M1never having fired a rifle before. and then there was the marine sniper during the somali pirate incident that whacked two ragheads with a 50 cal Barrett from the deck of destroyer on the high seas--allowing for wave action and all, that was a great bit of shooting.

HDHouse said... Not to be too Jonathan Swift here but the obvious solution that the gun lovers would embrace would be to issue each kid a handgun when he turns, say 3 years old or so, or strong enough to pull the trigger..by the time they are adults so many would be gone that only the best shots and the most cunning gun toters would be left leaving us a population who are very good at the old lock and load.

Everyone then would be well trained and versed on shooting and although society would look like the posturing before the OK Corral shootout, eyes twitching, hands at the ready to draw and shoot, the gun lobby would have no opposition and all would be right with the world.

1/12/11 6:43 AM______________________________

This is the sort of thing you have to believe to be a leftist.

This is one reason liberal university faculty train their acolytes to revel in absurdity. Anyone capable of embarassment cannot be a leftist as it requires one to publicly affirm many irrational postions.

So, to make sure the peasants know the 1000 foot limit, members of Congress will be required to wear GPS trackers that transmit their exact location instantly to a monitoring site that is posted in real time on the internet. Seems fair.

Can we hang large bells off of them so we know they're in the vicinity?

Actually, I really like this idea, but it doesn't go far enough. We would need to attach some kind of noisemaking device to these officials, which would periodically emit a sound clearly audible at 1000 feet (say, every 5 minutes) so that those of us with carry permits would be reasonably warned and could avoid the restricted area.

It would probably also be helpful for the officials to wear distinctive clothing- maybe a blaze-orange jumpsuit- so that hearing-impaired gun owners would also have a reasonable indication of the presence of one of these officials. The Americans With Disabilities Act would require no less.

I feel these precautions would improve the personal safety of our elected officials and help ensure they receive the respect they deserve.